Quoting StevenAus, reply 3Stardock needs to block all human non-allowed locations from ever being decided for the AI to use.
IMHO this fix goes in the wrong direction. Instead, anything happening in the world must be under control of some kind of world manager, and that world manager decides whether settling (or building an outpost) is possible independent of which player tries to do it (human or AI).
It's the same for movement - if two stacks try to enter the same tile, the world manager decides whether to start combat or to stack them (or put them into one stack, if they are small enough and from the same player).
And - since the game is multi-threaded - movement must be serialized (easier) or at least coordinated to happen in the same thread (a bit harder) so that two stacks in the same tile can't happen by "lucky" timing.
Exactly. But Frogboy explained in a different thread that it doesn't work that way and never will. Instead, human players are prevented from doing certain things by the UI, and the AI has to duplicate this behavior somehow.
Do you mean the fact that all members of a stack have the movement points of the stack, and the stack only has as many movement points as the member with the fewest points remaining?
This is a common design. While individual points would be useful, it's not a bug.
I mean the fact that all members of a stack pay for the movement of a subgroup leaving the stack. Assume, for example, a stack where one unit has two movement points and another unit has four movement points. If the "slow" unit (with two movement points) spends one movement point to leave the stack (it does not matter how far it moves; only the first tile counts in this case), the other "fast" unit will pay for it with half of its own movement points. That is, it loses two movement points without moving.
I also mean the fact that all members of a stack lose movement points if another group joins them. If, in the example above, the "slow" unit moves back to join the "fast" unit, the fast unit will again lose movement points without moving. If the "slow" unit has one or zero movement points left, the movement points of the "fast" unit will be set to two or zero movement points accordingly.
Movement points are individual, they just don't work.
For me saving always works.
Loading a game also works if there is enough free memory.
I'll admit I haven't tried saving with a dialog open.
The bug is that destroying the "old" world when loading does not free the memory used by the old world - a classic leak. And no, despite being known since early WoM days (I think it was already there when I got WoM shortly after release), there is no trace of a fix. Any improvements here seem to come from the efforts to use less memory in general.
That depends on what you mean by "always works". Yes, it does save something but not necessarily the current state of the "world". For example, planned moves are executed and may even trigger the bug that hostile factions can end up on the same tile or that an unguarded lair is not looted. The improper cleaning you mention is a second bug.
All of this has been around since the public beta (as I was told) and has been reported several times. No acknowledgement from Stardock so far.
